Abstract
Abstract This paper discusses three approaches in economics which take a position on the definition of well-being and which use insights from psychology to support their positions: Scitovsky’s Joyless Economy, happiness economics, and the constitutional approach to happiness in economics. The paper shows first that the definition of well-being by each approach, which is a normative step, is revealed by the choice of a psychological theory or method rather than resulting from the application of a theory or method. Secondly, this paper demonstrates that personal judgement by the authors is often needed in the positive realm, in order to interpret psychological results and to then translate them into practical recommendations. Both of these issues have implications for those theories that define well-being as something other than the fulfillment of individual preferences whatever their content, and which therefore yield a potential justification for paternalism. This paper argues that the potential paternalistic implications of these approaches are not based on positive science only, but rely on normative choice and personal judgement.
Highlights
In her obituary of Tibor Scitovsky, Marina Bianchi (2003: 405) stresses that he did "ask how preferences, and what kind of preferences, best promote individual well-being
This paper starts from the following diagnosis: (1) that the equation of welfare with individual choice can be seen as the result of an attempt to resolve the tension between talking about welfare and being scientific; (2) that the questioning of this equation brings the economist back to the tension between talking about welfare and being scientific; (3) that this tension can never fully be resolved, since talking about welfare implies a definition of welfare, which always relies on a normative step, while I take being scientific to mean that one does positive science only
Being explicit about normative choice and personal judgements is especially necessary for authors who use psychology to support their approach to well-being, in order to avoid the misleading impression that their definition of welfare and the associated implications or recommendations are purely based on positive science
Summary
In her obituary of Tibor Scitovsky, Marina Bianchi (2003: 405) stresses that he did "ask how preferences, and what kind of preferences, best promote individual well-being. The equation of individual welfare (or well-being, I use both terms interchangeably in this paper) with individual choices was a central pillar of most of economics at the time Scitovsky wrote his Joyless Economy. Joyless Economy, happiness economics, and the constitutional approach to happiness in economics Their use of findings or methods from psychology can be interpreted as an attempt to bring their arguments about the definition of welfare closer to positive science.. Being explicit about normative choice and personal judgements is especially necessary for authors who use psychology to support their approach to well-being, in order to avoid the misleading impression that their definition of welfare and the associated implications or recommendations are purely based on positive science. I will show where they make use of personal judgement and where they make a normative choice when using psychology to support their approach to well-being
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
